Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Foundations of Physics

Nonlocality in quantum theory understood in terms of Einstein's nonlinear field approach

David Böhm, Basil J. Hiley

Published Aug 1, 1981• 26 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/bf00726935

Related papers

Nonlocality and Relativity in Various Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

Roderich Tumulka

•Jul 1, 2014•0 citations

Quantum Uncertainty and Nonlocality: Are they Correctly Understood?

Elias P. Gyftopoulos

In a brief article [1], Seife refers to works by Einstein and Schroedinger and concludes that there is a relentless murmur of confusion underneath the chorus of praise for quantum theory. It is noteworthy that a "murmur" is not necessarily a cause for replacement of any scientific theory, and that the issues raised by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, and Schroedinger's responses to the EPR paper have been satisfactorily resolved by Gyftopoulos and von Spakovsky [2] in a manner that renders the relentless murmur mute and unwarranted.

arXiv:0706.2848•Jun 19, 2007•0 citations

Beyond Gross-Pitaevskii Mean Field Theory

Nick P. Proukakis

A large number of effects related to the phenomenon of Bose-Einstein Condensation (BEC) can be understood in terms of lowest order mean field theory, whereby the entire system is assumed to be condensed, with thermal and quantum fluctuations completely ignored [1]. Such a treatment leads to the Gross-Pitaevskii

•Dec 4, 2012•2 citations

On the intuitive understanding of nonlocality as implied by quantum theory

David Böhm, Basil J. Hiley

Foundations of Physics•Mar 1, 1975•178 citations

Nonlinear nonlocal classical field theory of quantum phenomena

A. O. Barut

International Journal of Engineering Science•Oct 1, 1992•0 citations

A Modest View of Bell's Theorem

S. P. Boughn

In the 80 years since the seminal Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paper, physicists and philosophers have mused about the `spooky action at a distance' aspect of quantum mechanics that so bothered Einstein. In his formal analysis of EPR-type entangled quantum states, Bell (1964) concluded that any hidden variable theory designed to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics must necessarily be nonlocal and allow superluminal interactions. This doesn't immediately imply that nonlocality is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics let alone a fundamental property of nature; however, many physicists and philosophers of science do harbor this belief. Experts in the field often use the term `nonlocality' to designate particular non-classical aspects of quantum entanglement and do not confuse the term with superluminal interactions. However, many physicists seem to take the term more literally. I endeavor to disabuse the latter of this notion by emphasizing that the correlations of Bell-type entanglement are a result of ordinary quantum superposition with no need to introduce nonlocality. The conclusion of the EPR paper wasn't that quantum mechanics is nonlocal but rather that it is an incomplete description of reality. For different reasons, many physicists, including me, agree with Einstein that quantum mechanics is necessarily an incomplete description of reality.

arXiv:1604.08529•Apr 28, 2016•3 citations
In a brief article [1], Seife refers to works by Einstein and Schroedinger and concludes that there is a relentless murmur of confusion underneath the chorus of praise for quantum theory. It is noteworthy that a "murmur" is not necessarily a cause for replacement of any scientific theory, and that the issues raised by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, and Schroedinger's responses to the EPR paper have been satisfactorily resolved by Gyftopoulos and von Spakovsky [2] in a manner that renders the relentless murmur mute and unwarranted.
In the 80 years since the seminal Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) paper, physicists and philosophers have mused about the `spooky action at a distance' aspect of quantum mechanics that so bothered Einstein. In his formal analysis of EPR-type entangled quantum states, Bell (1964) concluded that any hidden variable theory designed to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics must necessarily be nonlocal and allow superluminal interactions. This doesn't immediately imply that nonlocality is a characteristic feature of quantum mechanics let alone a fundamental property of nature; however, many physicists and philosophers of science do harbor this belief. Experts in the field often use the term `nonlocality' to designate particular non-classical aspects of quantum entanglement and do not confuse the term with superluminal interactions. However, many physicists seem to take the term more literally. I endeavor to disabuse the latter of this notion by emphasizing that the correlations of Bell-type entanglement are a result of ordinary quantum superposition with no need to introduce nonlocality. The conclusion of the EPR paper wasn't that quantum mechanics is nonlocal but rather that it is an incomplete description of reality. For different reasons, many physicists, including me, agree with Einstein that quantum mechanics is necessarily an incomplete description of reality.